User talk:Kudpung/Archive 2022

piano

May greetings, and sorry to hear about your fingers, - glad to hear about your FA thought: take a little step each day and you'll get there ;) - One of my choirs came back to praises, pictured on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee

I wonder how many Wikipedians clearly remember watching the coronation live on TV on 2 June 1953. I do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your family was doing well to have a TV back then. My own earliest memory of the Queen was waving a flag when she disembarked at Kilchattan Bay but that was 5 years later. FYI, here's a photo of the beacon which was lit in her honour here yesterday... Andrew🐉(talk) 16:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Andrew, it wasn't in our house. We had recently moved into a new house in the first street to be completed on one of the large housing estates being built by the Ministry of Works for the thousands of scientists and personnel of the War Office's research facility, the TRE, when it had been decided it was to become a permanent (and the largest) feature of Malvern's demographics - and still continues today as the QinetiQ quango and Malvern Hills Science Park.

The television was in another house and the whole street was crowded into their front room. We children had to stand outside and watch through the window. Boxes and crates had been put there for us to stand on. The street was lined with Union Jack bunting stretched between the lamp posts. I remember it all extremely well. My Dad had been on the team that developed the airborne radar during the war using the cavity magnetron. He built our first TV himself a year later using scrounged valves, a green oscillator CRT, and a wooden ammunition box. By that time I had learned to use pliers and a soldering iron. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That one time when Queen Elizabeth hazed the crown prince of Saudi Arabia.

The US government isn't really working out for us. It made a great start, but later everything went into the toilet. Is there any chance that the UK would be willing to take us back if we gave them a sincere apology for those things we said in 1776? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just an apology that would be needed; you'd have to demonstrate an understanding that tea is made in teapots using boiling fresh water, not harbours full of cold salty water. Plus that unfortunate typo needs fixing, it is the right to bare arms not bear arms. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...what? I thought we had the right to arm bears. (...Checks the internet...) See [ https://duckduckgo.com/?q=the+right+to+arm+bears&iax=images&ia=images ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It was actually intended to refer to the display of heraldic achievements but, because you’d already abolished gentlemen, nobody knew what it really meant any more.—Odysseus 1479 02:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction:

Re "the WMF is run by incompetents incapable of keeping expenditures in line with income and capital, rather than professionals in nonprofit administration with extensive experience in just that balancing act, by Guy Macon" in [1] Could you make it clear that those are not my words but rather snow rise's interpretation[2] of my words? (AKA stuffing words my mouth and then knocking down the resulting straw man.) Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same error at [3].

For the record, my actual position is that the W?F are not incompetent regarding financing. I believe that are very skilled -- at lining their own pockets instead of making Wikipedia better, and at hiding where the money goes. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, I'm truly sorry about that misunderstanding - it was an easy enough one to make. I'll correct them. I'm on your side though, and this: I believe that are very skilled -- at lining their own pockets instead of making Wikipedia better, and at hiding where the money goes, is almost certainly more accurate, especially when reportedly their executives spend 200 days a year on intercontinental trips on the WMF's more than willing business travel budget,^[1] not to mention the many other staff junkets so typical of non-profits, while they constantly cuts crucial corners on developing urgently required software and supporting the volunteers, for which they constantly complain they are short of cash. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ Sile, Elizabeth (21 June 2018). "How the 35-Year-Old Executive Director of Wikimedia Travels". The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Retrieved 4 June 2022.

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I think that your Counter-Vandalism Academy has helped Wikipedia fight vandalism. I believe that you and your Counter-Vandalism Academy has helped Wikipedia a lot in fighting Vandalism. Sincerly, RayAdvait RayAdvait (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ray ! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over-coverage tag on Tattoo?

Hi! I'm thinking about working on some cleanup for the tattoo article, and I saw you added an over-coverage tag to that article in January, but I can't find anything on the talk page about what you had in mind when adding that tag. Can you help me understand what you were noticing in the article and recommending for improvement? I can guess about it, since there are a lot of aspects of the article that need improvement, but I figured I'd just check in briefly. Thank you! Dreamyshade (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dreamyshade. There have been over 70 further edits to the article since I tagged it. Any reader or Wikipedia editor who feels if it is uncomfortably long for an encyclopedic entry is entitled to rework it. Do feel free to remove the tag if or when you believe it no longer applies. I probably tagged it because I wanted to know something specific and found the page far too much to read to find what I was looking for - it's not a topic that generally falls within my sphere of interest and is not one that I would spend time contributing to. Please do go ahead and improve the article; the guidelines at WP:AS and MOS:OL may certainly help and the page statistics as of today are:

HTML document size: 386 kB
Prose size (including all HTML code): 81 kB
References (including all HTML code): 167 kB
Wiki text: 97 kB
Prose size (text only): 44 kB (7096 words) "readable prose size"
References (text only): 20 kB

Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thank you, helpful to know you were thinking along those lines, rather than a particular region bias. It is an unwieldy article, with a lot of content overlap with related articles, many of which are in poor condition. I'll see what I can do. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes

I just saw your post at Ritchie333's talkpage. First of all, I thought it was splendidly eloquent about ANI and the like. But I also just found out there about your recent brush with Covid, and I want to stop by and wish you good health and all the best. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tryptofish}. Yeah, ANI is a weird place. Ritchie is someone I regret never having met each time I was in the UK. I could imagine jamming with him in a pub somewhere but I'm not sure if I'll ever get back to the UK, 15 hours on a plane is too much. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about your COVID struggles too, that virus can be brutal. I've been dealing with my own (non-COVID) health issues for the last few months, so I know what it feels like. Glad you're feeling better. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Scott, you and I go back a long time on WP. Always nice to hear from you. I mentioned your RfA clerking RfC a couple of days ago somewhere. Do get well soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I saw Scotty's comment, and went to Ritchie's talkpage. I am sorry to hear about your experience. One of the most effective advice for covid is to stay positive, and happy, and not being worried. Being scared/nervous/tense/angry leads CNS to cause something to do with blood vessels, and blood pressure (one of the causes for heart falures). So, "DON'T PANIC"

—usernamekiran (talk) 2

Thanks, usernamekiran. I'm not scared/nervous/tense/angry, but when you get to my age you realise you'll never be a spring chicken again! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP phab requests

First, glad to hear you are doing well after COVID; it was a surprise to hear about.

I will open a ticket on the NOINDEX issue. I already opened one asking for a minor improvement in review statistics. Do you have any advice on how to get some NPP requests expedited. I don't need to tell that NPP is struggling right now. I don't have any personal relationships with any WMF personnel. I just recalled that your related comment on my talk page about a month ago when you talked about the WMF revolving door and maybe MMiller (WMF) would be sympathetic. I see his user pages says "I am now the Group Product Manager working with the Web, Editing, and Growth teams." That seems like a place to start; I will contact him. MB 19:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP newsletter

I just finished composing the next newsletter and when I was done, I saw that you had started one also! You are acting less and less retired every day! If you look at mine, I mentioned you there but wanted your approval on that before it is "published". I can incorporate your school/notability section. Other than that, I'd like to sent it out ASAP since the backlog is climbing again. MB 22:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MB, nothing had been done there before I straightened out the page format again yesterday, and began putting down some ideas that could go into a next newsletter for early July, but what we now have is a strange situation of two drafts. Actually, I'm semi-retired. NPP is pretty much all I care for and do here nowadays, so I hope you are not suggesting I should not be editing Wikipedia ;)

The coordination page states: Newsletters can be drafted by anyone but please check with coordinators before sending. However, the long absence now of either a coordinator or a coordination team, has allowed NPP to become somewhat disorganised and confusing. Your initiative for the newsletter is great - after all, when I felt I had had enough of coaxing NPP along, it's one of the things I hoped someone would take care of, but I'm perfectly happy to help it along and offer some advice while I still can. There is no urgency for newsletters, as demonstrated by the very fact that nobody could be bothered any more to do one 'fairly' regularly. I still believe it is important to spell out some important things, but without repeating the same fine details from barely a month ago or introducing more.

A motivating newsletter needs to be carefully drafted. Let's work together on it, even Novem Linguae has contributed in good faith and its nice to know that some people are watching (though he may not be aware of the exact wording of WP:CAN). NPP as it was redesigned 7 years ago is no longer in its infancy and a monthly news bulletin is now probably overkill: Note that sending frequent newsletters often dilutes their impact - like all other frequent spam, they tend to get binned before they are even read, whoever they are from. Once a month is more than enough. Once every two or three months would be better. I do appreciate your mention of me in your draft, but its absolutely not required; let's talk some more about the next newsletter, combine the drafts, and at least remove that bit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, Of course you should be editing Wikipedia as much as you want. All I meant was that since were no newsletters for 9 months until I did the last one, I was not expecting you or anyone else to do the next one. I went ahead and listed myself as Newsletter Coordinator at NPP coordinators a month ago and was expecting to continue writing these periodically.

(sidenote: I have also thinking about soliciting others to accept roles of overseeing some of the other coordinator tasks. Since we apparently have no one willing to take over the whole job, sharing it amongst half a dozen is probably the next best thing.)

On the newsletter, I agree that once a month is the maximum frequency. It has been a month since the last one. If things were going smoothly, we could wait longer. But the backlog is climbing again and I think it is good to give an update. I'm not concerned about diluted impact; it is short and can be read in a minute. I'm sure that some people will find it interesting and useful even if others ignore it.

I did pull in your advice on school articles, so I certainly want to combine them. And if you want your mention struck, I'll certainly respect that (but it was one of my favorite parts - I thought it was the most motivational part :)

I'd like to restore the part NL removed as canvassing. Since you don't seem to think it was a problem (it is a notification to a whole project, and only said "please comment" - without suggesting what to say). Maybe "consider commenting" would come across as more neutral? MB 23:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MB, I'm sorry I didn't get back to you sooner on this - I didn't think there was any immediate urgency for a newsletter, and I still don't. It was also a bit long and academic studies in the past have suggested that frequent, long newsletters attract less attention. I also put the dynamic backlog graph in my draft but you didn't use it. Never mind, it's sent, and we can only hope that it will have the desired impact, but I'm not optimistic. Thank you for following up with the 90-day duration debate and sending the conclusion to Phab. It might work, but the devs are unpredictable and prone to making unilateral decisions. Fingers crossed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My observations are that the queue went down again (by about 500) after the newsletter. I also wanted to get out notification of the backlog drive before it starts - the participants about doubled. I also noticed that Diannaa now has the NPP backlog on the top of her talk page! Not sure dynamic things in a newsletter are good because it isn't a snapshot in time. I did wait for three days for you to comment and saw that you were active daily, so I assumed that you weren't going to say more. Fingers crossed too. MB 05:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MB, you might be right about the dynamic pics. I was thinking of the other argument: Newsletters stay visible a long time on many people's talk pages, and having become somewhat of a pessimist (doom & gloom for NPP), I believe the actual backlog will rise again after the initial impacts of backlog drives. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evening

Hi @Kudpung: Good evening. scope_creep^Talk 20:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today

Today is a birthday. Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the unwanted surprise.

I just like to clarify my thoughts here and give a fuller explanation here. I was hesitating in marking it as reviewed and should have let it go but did not. I was actually browsing through the curated NPP list and reading when your comments came through. I remembered the article clearly as I spent a bit of time back and forth and it was instant recognisation that I screwed up in that assessment. Hence the fast response. As it is a note which does not seem to have any need to respond to, I decided to just archive it (if you note I use the 1 click archiver which make things fast...). Again my apologies for the unwanted surprise and alert for it. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Justanothersgwikieditor. Just note the comments I left on Arbitrarily0's talk page and follow the links. You'll soon get the hang of things - and that monster backlog is waiting... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St Wulstan's Roman Catholic Church

Glad you liked my little Worcestershire Start. It came about via the Elgar Birthplace Museum, a place I shamefully must admit to never having heard of. This led me to Elgar’s grave, for which I found we didn’t have an article. Then I discovered that St Wulstan’s was designed by Benjamin Bucknall, an architect in whom I’ve been interested ever since I was taught by his grandson. Such is the wonderfully labyrinthine way that Wikipedia can work! Hope you are keeping well. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KJP1. I did like it, finding sensible articles to create and inlerlinking them is the way Wikipedia should work. I grew up in Malvern and among other things here I created WikiProject Worcestershire and I created or greatly expanded most the articles in category:Malvern, Worcestershire. I'm always pleased to see them being corrected or added to. I note your interest in architecture; I have always wanted to create an article on Victorian architect Edmund Wallace Elmslie but the problem has been finding truly reliable sources. Some of his projects inclded elements of Palladian architecture. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

McPherson Seaplane Base

I do, indeed have a question! Why? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandermcnabb, The 'airport' no longer exists. The provided source is not reliable. IMO there is no benefit to the encyclopedia by this stub's inclusion. If I had been the first to patrol it, I would probably have considered one of our avenues of deletion; I'm not a deletionist by any means and I don't mind being proven to be wrong, but a second set of eyes might be appropriate - after a very long experience with NPP I realise that not everyone applies the same criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you see, I missed that duff source but a quick Google showed others and I've had AfD's torpedoed before on WP:GEOLAND with a single source, so it was a 'tag and move on'. I'm currently trying quite hard not to overload AfD, a few of my recent noms have closed with no participation. It IS a place, I agree it's likely not notable (hence the tag) but as I say, also likely to survive AfD - IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there you go Alex, someone else - a very experienced editor - has already taken it to AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*gets out the popcorn* Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Testing

Testing why my IP has been blocked Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

Valereee

Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

Hello Kudpung,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination: MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP newsletter

1. You have this in the draft: Still not enough reviewers: The backlog is still untenable. Less than 100 reviewers are truly active. Users who are genuinely interested in patrolling new pages are urgently needed, and a lot more who have a thorough knowledge of notability for Asian topics. Check the criteria, read the tutorials and apply at PERM.. I removed that from last month's without discussing - my reason is that you encourage the newsletter to be kept short, yet this is not pertinent to most newsletter recipients - they already have the perm. Why don't we add something similar to the upcoming Signpost outreach piece for the WMF letter? That would be more likely to reach potential reviewers.

2. I would like to move the newsletter draft off the coord page to a subpage. That way, it wouldn't have to be collapsed (I dislike having to uncollapse it on every preview when writing), all the watchers of the coord page wouldn't have to see every change over the 4-8 weeks of development, and the contributors (mostly you and I right now) could discuss it on a separate TP. It wouldn't be hidden - anyone could see it with one click on a link (instead of a click on the show button). What do you think? MB 05:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania

Wikimania is currently running as a mix of online and in-person events and I have been sampling these. I'm not convinced that these provide the same sense of occasion but at least it's a lot cheaper than travelling to somewhere like HK. Tomorrow, the London meetup is a hub for local activity and I'll be sampling the online conference from there. Have you tried any of this? It might be fun to try connecting our two locations with a video chat link, which the conference software provides. Note also that London is currently hotter than Thailand and so you are in the cooler spot, for once! Andrew🐉(talk) 17:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, I'm also not convinced that these provide the same sense of occasion. While these COVID induced solutions are cheaper for the participants, having attended several Wikimanias around the globe I certainly insist that that there is no substitute for the major, live conference. It's certainly cheaper for the WMF and one can only wonder, apart from raising their own already massive salaries again, what they will do with the surplus. They should of course pool it to make the next real Wikimania the best ever, and hold it here in Thailand as originally planned. I'm all for modern technology but I'm not a fan of virtual meetups of the Wikipedia kind so I'll be giving the activities a miss again.

London might be hotter than some parts of Thailand. Here where I live it usually hovers at around 37º all year round except for the April spike when it reaches 41 - 42º. We're used to it. The tarmac doesn't melt, the railway lines don't buckle, our car radiators don't boil, and the hospitals are not full of people suffering from heatstroke. We have aircon in our cars and in our homes (electricity here is plentiful and very cheap), and the last thing we talk abut is the weather because like the length of the daylight hours, it's pretty much always the same. During the monsoon we get a lot if rain but one heavy 20 minute shower bang on 5:00PM every day for 6 moths is preferable to 12 months of cold, permanent drizzle. No wonder the tropics are a magnet for European retirees. It's been slightly less warm (I hesitate to say 'cooler') today because it's overcast but moving here from Europe 22 years ago was my smartest move!

On another topic, I'm glad that stupid ANI case petered out after I had my say. Goodness knows what the OP was thinking of. He probably meant well but as totally new to NPP he was certainly straying into deep water. He seems to be doing alright now at NPP and I hope he will keep up the good work and not drown into the pool of hat collectors. NPP is a supportive crowd and he can rely on getting plenty of help if he needs it. (I notice he hasn't signed the letter yet - hint)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Stalkers

NPP is our only firewall against totally inappropriate new pages, but has far too few active reviewers and it urgently needs its tools upgrading. If you appreciate the hard work these volunteers do to keep the encyclopedia free of junk and encourage other editors to improve their new articles, please read this letter and if you support it, consider signing it. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trink

Hello! Thank you for bringing that to my attention. That was definitely an oversight by the automatically generated short description. I have fixed the article with the correct description in my opinion. If I need to do anything else, just let me know. Red Director (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Red Director I have also corrected the categories and the entry in Wikidata. I realise that the shortdesc tool enables rapid-fire edits but such tools are never 100% reliable. I never use it; shortdesc are also often automatically generated by an article's infobox or some other template and are often not entirely accurate. When I do use semi or automated editing I check back to see what the tool or script has done. For example, several actions, such as article creations, create the entries for Wikidata. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP History Questions ; Why does WMF want IP editors?

Hi Kudpung,

I was just thinking that part of the NPP problems is the WMF policy on anonymous users; the policy burns out NPP editors

There is A LOT of discussions in the past, but would you mind explaining what you think are the reason for WMF's policy And are there statistics on what percentage of anonymous editors are good faith? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm not an expert, but my take is that it simply comes down to "moar editors". It removes a barrier to people contributing to an article. I think it made a lot of sense early on, but today it doesn't make much sense to continue this policy. It takes seconds to register an account; you don't even need to give an email address. The bar is so incredibly low, I can't imagine it would really prevent any significant percentage of people from contributing here. But it would put a much bigger barrier in front of vandals and crap article creators. Given the history of this influential policy, it's unlikely it'll ever be overturned. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 03:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) What Scotty said. I think it is more about bragging rights than anything, being pushed by people who don't have to deal with the ramifications of the policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF's absolutely clear but unwritten policy/philosophy about mainspace articles is 'quantity is more important than quality'. They believe the donors are seduced by the millions of articles that the en.Wiki boasts, although possibly nearly half of the articles are crap and wouldn't even do justice to a Facebook page. The Foundation laughs at us, the volunteers, while they take an early retirement at 40 after enjoying celebrity salaries of up to half a million bucks a year (with perks).

The NPP process is bankrupt, 600 of the 750 patrollers are mere hat collectors, and should be kicked out like they would be by the boss of AfD, and the WMF refuses to process any requests for enhancement of the NPP software because they are scared it would result in fewer articles about unknown ball players, Bollywood, business icons, and other bullshitters. They refuse to allow editing only by registered users because they are scared it will cause a drop in the number of editors viz page producers. As Scott says, it only takes a second to register and it is a total aberration that something as big and important as Wikipedia is the only website or web based project of any kind in the world that does not require registration. Registration does not mean the end of "...that anyone can edit". There are two very simple processes waiting in the wings for years but have never been deployed, Jorm designed one because I asked him to, and I designed the other. They need no programming beyond Wikimarkup, but it's knowing when the WMF would be ready to allow them.

Wikipedia's backroom boys are on the brink of mutiny. Not for lack of content providers - ooh, there are plenty of them jostling to promote their garage band or local politician or make money at our expense, but it will be for lack of people among the ranks of regular, dedicated maintenance workers and admins. One only has to look a the huge walkout over Framgate, from which a few never bothered to come back and Scott, Dennis and I know only too well what it's like as admins to be used and abused by the project we've dedicated so much time, energy, and nerves too - all for free. The WMF seems hellbent on pushing its major stakeholders, the volunteer labour force, further and further to the edge of the cliff.

To answer Wakelamp's question, no, there aren't any stats; for anyone who knows how to use Quarry they would be child's play to obtain but the WMF is afraid of the truth, just like they were over ACTRIAL. If y'all want some bed time reading, try this New Page Patrol - a necessary evil, it's what finally got the WMF to change it's mind on ACTRIAL 6 years later, but it will be another 6 years before there are any new changes, I'll be nearly 80, and Wikipedia by then might well already have gone to the dogs. Rant over. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with the rant, and the other comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet W?F believes in crowdsourcing. They probably think that the encyclopedia is created by so many disparate editors (registered or not) that complaints of a vocal few don't represent the mass of contributors. Forever allowing IP editors helps prevent W?F from being dependent on a coterie of registered editors in guild-like fashion policing who is allowed to edit. Management always seeks to prevent class consciousness. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In history, the wisdom of the crowd has often been driven by pure hysterical propaganda and later proven to be wrong. There is still a huge divide beween the WMF and its volunteer encyclopedia communities; the WMF sees its role increasingly as a global socio-political reformer something on the lines of Greenpeace and lots of luxury junkets to achieve it, but paying itself huge salaries to the detriment of providing the real help its volunteers require. It's not what the pool of free labour signed up for. Those are strategies for spending the donations generated by unpaid dedication that have been thunk up in 'The Wall Street of the West'.

IMO, in the battle between the Foundation and the communities, the salaried staff (whose job titles in American tradition are always called 'manager' of something or other) actually create class conciousness - not only here on-Wiki but also during huge conferences such as the many Wikimanias I've attended. Registered editors don't police in guild-like fashion who is allowed to edit, but they do decide local policy regarding what gets into the articles, and that's what in the first instance NPP does and the admins who do the deletions in the next step.

We all encourage enthusiastic new users to stick around but if the content they create is crap, they have to be told. Either that, or they are made perfectly clear when they open a Wikipedia editing page of what is allowed here and what is not. One way is to insist on registering, which would make them communicable and accountable, by giving them them some proper but warm and welcoming advice when they do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well then Kudpung, why don’t you go ahead and retire and enjoy the rest of your life in peace? Are you sticking around just to warn the regulars/newbies and encourage them to abandon ship? Sure. I’ve seen plenty of doomsday prophets, and there’s always a reason why they choose to speak up. Perhaps they just lost it. Perhaps they’re just trying to make a quick buck by selling a book or appearing on TV. But why would you try to fix the issues at NPP if you’re one of those people? I predict that beneath your cynicism, you truly want what’s best for the project. Otherwise, you would have just given up a long time ago.

What I’m sad about is that no one working on the cite gets any sort of reward for their actions. I’ve seen my own work being quoted word-for-work by major video game journalists and YouTubers. And what do I get? Not a red cent or an ounce of credit. But I don’t care about that. They should count their lucky stars that people here don’t work for anything. But I think it is time that we should get at least a little help for all the hard work we’re doing. Readers should know that there are actual people doing all the writing on Wikipedia, and I think the site hasn’t been helping its volunteers enough. We should show readers and donors that we are in a sorry state, and need a helping hand. Hard part is, I haven’t the foggiest idea how to raise awareness. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite follow the implications you appear to be saying here, but thanks anyway for your comment - I do prefer to assume you're being encouraging rather than criticising. You are obviously not aware, however, of what we NPPers been doing this year besides writing new articles and cleaning up other peoples' mess, and despite having more than enough reason to let Wikipedia wallow in its own muck, I'm quite the opposite of a harbinger of doom-and-gloom, but someone has to spell out the predicament this encyclopedia is in. Your opinion of "...the site hasn’t been helping its volunteers enough" is actually quite wrong and I'm sure what you really meant to say was " ...the WMF haven't been helping its volunteers enough" - and that's precisely what I have been helping MB and Novem Linguae to address. There's a lot of work that goes unnoticed by peopoe who only read my talk page and don't check out the other task force pages. Although I say it myself, it's rare to find anyone who is as passionate and dedicated to improving NPP and helping its reviewers as I have been for over a decade, and I'll be damned if I'll let the legacy I left for NPP go to pot again while I'm still alive - It's been was a hell of a lot of work both on-Wiki and off-Wiki meetings on most of the word's continents at my own expense with the people who matter. Like you say, we get no rewards but some thanks occasionally would not go amiss. You're very new on Wikipedia and you seem to be doing a good job. You've only been a New Page Reviewer for a few weeks - If you like doing it, don't kick the process you signed up for and keep up the good work. Here's an important page for your bedtime reading, it's called NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CollectiveSolidarity: I think that Kudpung was very gracious in replying to you, but, speaking for myself, I find the first couple of sentences of your comment somewhat rude, although probably not intentionally. Anyone can stick around here for whatever reasons they wish. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung If the first part of my comment was rude, I apologize because it was not my intention. I'm perhaps a little over my head here. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung I understand your position a bit more; I am still confused on the WMFs. :-). I am not sure whether the assume good faith is was addressed at me, but I am working as such. I would like more editors to stay; I find the empty parts (projects etc) depressing, but I now think our current policies/systems are unfair to both NPP and Newbies. You have convinced me a bit more about NPP ,( I still have lots of problems with NPP/AfD/AfC/Guidelines though!).

Anyway long Standing Policies can change, but there has to be consensus at each stage.

So, which of these would be stumbling blocks

- NPP

- The majority of active Admins (550 and dropping :-( )

- Active Wiki anon editors

- Active Wiki editors

- idea

- Proposal

- Wiki active edi

- WMF Wiki Editor board members?

- Wiki developers

- WMF

- Potential New Editors

- Readers -Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wakelamp, my reply above was for CollectiveSolidarity who is very new. That's a long list you've posted and unfortunately nowadays I'm the wrong person to ask, so I'm really sorry but I don't have the time to explain it all. You can nevertheless rest assured that we at NPP or the rest of the community are already working on all of them in discussions in various appropriate places. All the answers are out there and I suggest you read up on how the WMF and the BoT are structured, and how software development is done and by whom. Check out Wikimedia Foundation, then this page, then his page.

If you are finding the learning curve for NPP very steep, I thoroughly recommend you enroll at the NPP school. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung I am glad. That makes me much happier. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding why IP editing is still seen as an NPP issue when IP editors were prevented from creating new articles back in 2005 as a result of the Seigenthaler scandal – see Signpost. This was done by Jimmy Wales and the WMF so the claims above that they are determined to allow IP editors to create new articles seem absurd. There was another tightening of the screw with the ACTRIAL and such experiments continue. Here's a recent example: IP Editing Restriction Study. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP editing is not seen as a NPP issue, Andrew, and never has since 2005, at least not by the NPP community. IP articles don't come through the feed. If they go anywhere, it's direct to AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OP framed this as an NPP issue: "NPP History Questions ; Why does WMF want IP editors? ... I was just thinking that part of the NPP problems is the WMF policy on anonymous users; the policy burns out NPP editors". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know, Andrew. The the thread was started in good faith based on a discussion at the VP, but I don't think the OP has a particulary broad knowledge yet of how Wikipedia works, especially NPP. In fact I'll probably archive this thread very soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung Always learning :-) I thought NPP did anti-vandalism, so IP editors would cause issues. ptwp block on edits seems to have gone well.Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wakelamp, NPP strictly only reviews new mainspace articles and redirects. They have nothing to do with IP editors. IP editors and new users can't create articles unless they use the Wizard and submit to AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New article review

@Kudpung: Thank you for reviewing this new article I created. Please may you continue, here is another one. Ear-phone (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Thank you . Ear-phone (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Please find another new article I've created. Please may you review it. Thank you. Ear-phone (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP message

Hi Kudpung,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Award for 2019

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2019. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2019. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are almost caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-->

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in the Board Election

Hi Kudpung, I think me replying to you at WP:VPWMF will just end up with us agreeing with each other, in circles :-)

But on the topic of the election, I want to pass along this list of NPP letter signers who haven't voted yet (updates every 15 minutes), in case you or another NPPer are able to encourage some of them to go vote. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Legoktm, the best I could do is this. Anyone who hasn't voted yet are probably the 500+ reviewers who are not active. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm, I have left a short "get-out-the-vote" message for each of the signers who have not yet voted. The list declined by two since I started, so it may be helping. MB 04:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung, @MB: thanks!! And yes, it definitely seems to be helping. You can see all the voters here (sorted by most recently voted), which has two of the letter signers near the top. Legoktm (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: For the record, MJL/P is not particularly fond of voting since they don't exist. I imagine CX Zoom feels the same way about CX Zoom/X.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: ahhh, I messed up and forgot to strip subpages out of the signatures I extracted. Fixed now, sorry about that :( Legoktm (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm just going to assume that this message is a misplaced invitation to CX Zoom 2, and that he will certainly be casting a vote in the BoT election. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I voted but do not appreciate being pestered to vote. I choose my own course, and if I had chosen not to vote for any of several valid reasons, I would not like being bugged about it. . Cullen328 (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen328, I didn't pester anyone. My talk page still has around 700 watchers (a vestige from the days when I was a dedicated Wikipedian). Any action concerning NPP is strictly a decision of its coordinators and I'm sure whatever comments I make, what they do is in the best of good faith and 100% in the interests of our encyclopedia, even if not in the WMF's furtherance of its goal to becoming a socicio-political movement - which is what most of us didn't sign up for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]

September music

Thank you for the big heart for me. 1 September: I remember the Vespro della Beata Vergine, 2 September: the last of the Rheingau Musik Festival concerts, and today we can read The Story of Mr Sommer, and follow Ruth Lapide. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Today's recommended reading: Opera in Ukraine (not by me) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a rainbow today, and a deer yesterday (but hard to see) - Jubilate Deo --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the rose pic was taken on 11 Sep 2021, and this year was full of music that day, Tag des offenen Denkmals, not only singing in church and rehearsals for Verdi's Requiem, but two concerts at special places pictured, one a synagogue (pictured on its wall). Today three DYK: a piece we'll perform on Sunday, a violinist we heard in June playing the Berg Concerto, and a Youth Orchestra shaped by a conductor who recently died. Almost too much of a good thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

today, we sang old music for two choirs at church, pictured, scroll to the image of the organ of the month of the Diocese of Limburg (my perspective), and if you have time, watch the video about it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... and today I wrote an article about music premiered today, Like as the hart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query on elections

Hey Kudpung, I don't think we've had the pleasure, but I've been aware of your admirable standing in the community for some time. Re this, which are the two candidates you refer to? Your rationale on tech support essentially sums up why I would vote for a certain candidate(s), and I would rather not trudge through the statements myself. Aza24 (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aza24, I'm not sure my standing is still as admirable as you suggest but thank you for the kind words. Don't necessarily trudge through the statements but if you do you'll see immediately on the associated talk pages where my votes have gone. Do however watch these candidates' short videos, it will only take about 20 minutes and if you don't want to watch the videos, you can also read transcripts of the candidates' responses. I have voted only for the two candidates who have clearly made a firm commitment to addressing the volunteer editors' needs for attention to technology and who have extensive experience on en.Wiki as editors and/or admins.

I have not voted for any who have left me with the vaguest impression that they will just become, (or remain if re-elected) a WMF yes-man (or woman). I also think it's very important to have at least a board member from the USA and the UK (or another major contributing English L1 country), because the en.Wiki is the Foundation's flagship and largest project and it's the encyclopedia the word Wikipedia evokes most worldwide and assures the majority of the donations. You'll not have much difficulty in guessing whom I have voted for, but the decision must be yours alone. You'll have to hurry though because the voting closes quite soon. Thank you for supporting the NPP petition, it's much appreciated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of this. I've voted just now, and have been struck by how out-of-touch a few of the candidates are, particularly on technical issues. It is embarrassing that Wikipedia is consistently among the most visited websites on earth and, with no lack of money, still faces such basic technical problems.

I'm glad to know about your ACE guides you mentioned on my talk page; I've often flown into those elections somewhat blind. This is partly because I am always at a constant struggle of trying to 'ignore' Wikimedia issues to focus on content creation, though it is easy to feel guilt from this approach. Aza24 (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Award for 2018

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2018. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2018. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We have just caught up with giving out deserved barnstars. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worcester

I'm currently looking at splitting the Worcester article. As you can see from User:Crouch, Swale/Districts and User:Crouch, Swale/District split its the only district in England named after a settlement that has neither a separate article for the district like Winchester/City of Winchester or a separate article for the district council like Norwich/Norwich City Council. Its unclear which should be done since unlike Winchester the boundaries of the district are similar to the settlement but unlike Norwich part of the district is parished from boundary changes in 1974 (district 8). I'm planning on creating an article for the district but as noted a district council article may be better. Since you've been involved a lot with the Worcester article over the years I'm asking what you think. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crouch, Swale. IMO, the length of the Worcester article alone does not justify division and splitting articles of this size just for the sake of having separate articles could be unnecessary and possibly even considered disruptive. I would therefore proceed with caution, and I would advise against doing it without a consensus from a formal RfC. However, let's get the opinions of these Worcester editors first: @JimKillock, DonBarton, Keith D, Fuzzyworcester, Gog the Mild, LlywelynII, Mhygelle, Jeni, Balch Mike, and Jaraalbe:, and then start an RFC on the Worcester talk page if necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't think splitting of a district article is appropriate then I'd go with the other option of just creating a Worcester City Council article like Gloucester City Council and everything currently in Worcester, England stays is. As you can see I left a comment at Talk:Worcester, England#District/council last month but there was no response. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting of articles like this just creates duplication and should be avoided. Where there is very little difference between the place & the district then a single article should be the normal. Keith D (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's your answer, Crouch, Swale, and Keith D is more of an expert on UK settlements than I am. There's no point in creating pages for the sake of creating pages. I have already undone the self-link in Worcester to the non existent page and I'll look for a AWB user to search the encyclopedia for more. I'll just add that UKDISTRICTS does not compel the creation of district articles, it's a guideline on how to write them if they are really necessary. I might propose merging Gloucester City Council which is little more than a stub, to its parent page and any others like it that I find on-the-fly. At the moment I have more serious issues to contend with such as the predicament the NPP system finds itself in. As far as I understand, you can't create articles anyway and that's an area where your support could be of immediate help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UKDISTRICTS does suggest to have single articles for settlement ans district if the boundaries etc are similar so yes per Keith it may be best to leave Worcester combined. Regarding article creation from 2019 until 2022 I was permitted to create 1 article a week through AFC. In 2022 this was changed to 1 article a month where I don't have to use AFC. I was going to use my 1 article a month to create the district article but since you and Keith think its not a good idea I won't at least not yet. See also Special:Diff/1063761094.

Regarding the city council alternative yes it is standard that if there is no separate article for the district from the settlement a district council. Last month I merged 46 district council articles but I left the likes of Gloucester City Council where there was no separate article on the district, as you can see in Category:Non-metropolitan district councils of England most are redirects except those where the district doesn't have a separate article from the place its named after. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crouch, Swale, I don't want to appear judgmental, I'll leave that to this Arbcom decision on your most recent request, but I do understand your passion for creating information on UK settlements. I will however state again that I see no point in creating redundant articles. The fact that WP:GEOLAND and WP:NPLACE generally assume legally recognised places to be notable doesn't mean that every possible configuration for an article about them has to be exploited. Bearing in mind that the work of Arbcom addresses behavioural rather than content issues, I think Barkeep49's WP:WILDFLOWERS parable has much to offer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned the most recent request allows me to create 1 article a month which is what the district article would have been but since you have said you don't think its a good idea I won't for now and I'll use my 1 article a month for something else. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have also written some essays about these kind of topics such as Wikipedia:Semi-duplicate, Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements and Wikipedia:Notability (councils). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned comment

Think you forgot to press the tildes when you left your comment at the ACERFC about Thryduulf's table. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is "press the tildes" a euphemism for something? (Sorry for the bad joke.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 and Tryptofish: Can happen to anyone. It came from cutting and pasting a post I wanted to make but which was compounded by some kind of new-fangled edit conflict resolution tool which is so lacking in instructions that I don't want to be bothered with using it. Oh, how I wish the devs would concentrate on improving something really essential. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worcestershire parishes

Like with Stanford with Orleton if you're interested User:Crouch, Swale/Missing parishes (3)#Worcestershire lists those missing in Worcestershire. The more that get created the more chance of me being able to create the remaining ones myself. We'll have to wait and see what happens in the new year with page creation but I could ask someone like WTT about what they think about NPR before than. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crouch, Swale, I think I created Stanford with Orleton, it would be one of the rare stubs I ever wrote because I don't generally believe in stubs. However Stanford /Orleton is a special case because it's a parish with a double name and I know it because it's very near to where I come from. That said, WTT is most familiar with your work. He is also an Arbcom member. Best to ask him on anything. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yes I improved Stanford with Orleton, indeed as you probably know most parishes with the same name as a settlement like Hatfield Peverel do not have separate articles however those like Stanford with Orleton that only exist as a parish do have standalone articles. This is different to the fact that districts like Bromsgrove/Bromsgrove District that have the same name as settlements generally are split. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crouch, Swale, as I said, I think you should ask TTT, he knows a bout your situation, he's British and also understands about English local government. Personally, I am very much against the creation of short stubs and articles that are near duplications of existing articles and which should best be left included in the parent articles. I obviously won't be stalking your work, but if I come across any by accident, I'll probably slate them for merging. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking anything (as that may be seen as proxying) I'm just suggesting. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer but with fringe benefits

Re [4], I bet there's an expense account for travel. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: there is indeed, and it's very generous, which you will know about if ever you've been to a Wikimania. A senior employee who travels a lot and joins all the junkets can almost leave their salary untouched. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

have tried again

JarrahTree 12:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Wakelamp, I hope you get this ping. I didn't get your email and for some reason your talk page cannot be edited. If you message was not particularly private and personal, I suggest you post it here. I would prefer it. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung I will contact help about my talk page.

The email was not disparaging or illegal or impolite. You mentioned email as an option on your page, so I chose that as an option as the contents of the email were mainly private. If the preferred etiquette is to discuss user talk first, I doubly apologize..

The contents contained a suggestion, that and only if you wished and deemed it wise, that I contact a close friend who is senior at a highly respected,, above reproach, small non profit which is involved in open source. The contact would be to ask if they would be willing to hold and distribute monies from any fundraising for NPP

To be clear, I have no involvement with the organization, am 12000 miles away, have no means or wish or interest in profiting or obtaining any benefit, and it would be a boon that I was asking, not a favour given.

This person is honorable, and are driven by fairness, rather than status, or fortune

I sent it via email as I mentioned the person's name, did not wish to appear a braggart, and I had not contacted them first.

Do not be concerned, it was a passing thought, which I now withdraw, and I am certain you have better options, and I will leave you to those.

There are some things that were in the email that are fine to be made public. I asked whether you were aware that (even though have explained before that ORES is totally different from NPP)

- ORES is being currently replaced by Last Wing for some applications, and I inferred that existing ones are to be considered as legacy/ break-fix work only

- that from looking through phab, the remaining programmers assigned to NPP/ORES seem to be doing ai content translation, conversion to other wikis, working on trust detection, or converting code to fawiki or ptwiki.

- That the ptwiki ORES is being made less aggressive due to the reduction in IP vandals and bad faith.

- that Wikilabel (the crowd source test for ores, and others AI/ML work s being upgraded.

-and that, as a contrast to your concerns, that fundraising Dev is heavily resourced and has quick response even for low priority tasks.

Best wishes with your work and struggle Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wakelamp. Thanks for replying. I think my involvement at the thread on the Village Pump may have conveyed the wrong impression. While it seemed (at someone else's suggestion) fun to toy with the idea of creating an incorporated association for NPP, nothing could be further in my mind. I doubt whether the NPP people would be interested in the bureaucracy of incorporating a registered charity, fundraising, and managing funds. An interest group might be an idea for obtaining a grant to from the WMF to send one of them to the WMF summit every year, but otherwise I can't think what they would do with any money if they had it. IMO, the WMF is alone responsible for funding software maintenance and improvement to the applications they built, not the volunteer Wikipedia editors. If NPP fails (which it could very well do) for lack of support from the WMF, and the ensuing lack of enthusiasm from the reviewers, I and a couple of others who started the ball rolling on NPP 14 years ago will have dedicated tens of thousands of free hours on Wikipedia over the years for nothing and spending our own money going to meetings and teaching at editathons. So be it. End of story ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

End of story, I hope not. :-) I think that they have contacted you in public is wonderful, and if they did that every month it might solve many issues, It sounds you would just like a continuing budget for NPP. I suggest that you think of the number of staff you wish and double it- as they are currently hiring 75 people they won't notice - and at least working on NPP will do some good. The Vector 2022 RFC has also underlined to me how much enthused talent is in the community, and how poor WMF are as managers to ignore it.

Your story would be much more concerning to them as a newspaper article than anything about fundraising - and "Mx.Kudpung goes to San Francisco" is an an awesome headline :-). They are first and foremost politicians , and fearful of their perceptions - the last CEO is now part of the Nobel Peace Prize Panel after all - so a voice of truth with an interesting story will always be an UXB in their eyes.Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thai school shooting

Only 10 km from us. Please pray with us for the bereaved and injured.' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have an old friend whose family lives in Bangkok. One of her favorite verses was Psalm 73:26. I haven't spoken to her in a long time, but I think that verse rings true even today. ‡ Night Watch ω (talk) 02:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts are with everyone affected, and hope you're doing alright too. Patient Zero^talk 02:39, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely tiny Scottish independent school

Could you check out this draft and indicate to the participants whether it is ever likely to meet notability? Even the putative award & honor seem very trumped up and from dubious sources: Draft:Lathallan School. Thanks and hope you are well, Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, I was the coord of WP:WPSCH for many years and I'm usually generous to school articles. The creator writes articles about Scottish schools and some have long swathes of unsourced content but pass notability. It's borderline spammy and the kind of thing someone with a COI or a UPE might write, but let's AGF - I don't think there is any deliberate attempt to be promotional but the external links should be severely pruned. There is a common misunderstanding among authors that a plethora of sources adds up to notability (and unfortunately that's what our 6-patrolls-a-minute reviewers see). The cited sources my be verifiable and even reliable, but they are listings and don't add up to notability. Source #5 doesn't add anything to the article and the quotation is a COPYVIO. The external spam links should also be removed. The award scheme run by a magazine publisher may or not have particular recognition among the serious independent schools, but on its own it's still not enough. Notability is not inherited from notable alumnae. IMO it fails GNG because better sources are probably not available, OTOH, it might survive an AfD. Take a look at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and I'll let you decide what to do - my judgment is not better than yours. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't want to touch it or its talkpage because I previously reported the creator for unsupported mass removal of postnominals from various articles. If it goes to AFD I will vote, but I don't want involvement at present. I will let be for now. Softlavender (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, As you wish. I won't touch it either because although I still write articles and support one or two campaigns for software improvement, I'm semi retired and happy to give my 2 cents, but I have little inclination these days to do much page and user policing. My comments above might be useful for you at an AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, as I wrote that analysis above, I've since posted it at the draft submission, so it's not wasted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October

Worcester City Council

The city council article has now been created so I won't both (at least for now) to create an article on the district. The council article is of a reasonable standard and was created by another user. As mentioned when a district doesn't have a separate article from the settlement of the same name is a longstanding exception to the general rule that district councils generally don't need separate articles. I instead used my 1 article a month to create Menethorpe instead. Everything else in the Worcester, England article will stay as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Kudpung,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sixteenth anniversary on Wikipedia!

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society

Dear Kudpung/Archive 2022,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Village pump discussion

Hi, sorry, Kudpung, I do see your point. I think I'm biased by working in academia, where writing properly-sourced review articles with a neutral point of view is pretty much part of the job, and where we're also quite used to looking at successful documents and emulating their style. This, I think, is quite a good foundation for working in Wikipedia. The problem that academics have is that they (we) don't always understand the nature of WP as a tertiary source, so we're too inclined to write what amounts to (secondary) reviews based on primary sources. Also academics don't always recognise conflict-of-interest. I've come across a couple of instances where I recognise the names and would feel myself that there's a massive conflict, but when the writing is good, the viewpoint neutral, and everything's exactly as it would have been written had there been no conflict, I personally turn a blind eye.

I can see that the correct writing-style in some professions wouldn't be so great in Wikipedia. That's why we get articles that look like good advertising copy...

About AfC, thank you for your suggestion. I had considered volunteering, but (1) when I volunteered some while back, I was advised (privately) to withdraw as I wasn't really sufficiently experienced, and (2) I had a bit of an unpleasant experience at AfD, which meant I decided to avoid argumentative areas (why on earth was I reading ANI??) and instead concentrate on translating uncontroversial articles from German. I'm still not super-experienced, and not great at managing conflict, which makes me unsuited to AfC. I do feel guilty about not pulling my weight. It's an area that desperately needs extra hands. Maybe I'll revisit it when I've been around longer. Elemimele (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elemimele. A very good translation of Altenau Palace with almost undetectable lingering traces of what I assume to be your native German which probably only a near native speaker of German would notice (20 square metres would make it smaller than the Kabuff in my kitchen). Translating, even for bilinguals, often lacks the required cultural linguistic heritage of one of the languages. I've copy-edited the article, compare the diffs to see the changes. I've also asked for a clarification at de:Diskussion:Schloss Altenau. Bear in mind that the en.Wiki is much stricter on sources than other Wikipedias and the existing sources often need double checking. Text quotations in en.Wiki may be different too, but I can't quite remember - check out the MoS. I occasionally translate articles for en.Wiki. If there are any more of your translations from German you would like me to take a quick look at, don't hesitate to let me know and time permitting, I'll see what I can do. Nine years of studying Kommunikationswissenschaft in BLN put me in good stead for a 30-year career in academia! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And thank you for your kind words, which encourage me to keep translating! Yes, sourcing is a problem for translations of fairly niche articles like this, because very often the original sources aren't particularly accessible, and German WP often seems to use general references rather than inline citations (which means it's hard to tie specific facts to specific references). This is a reason why I value AfC: the article might be useful, the subject notable, but I appreciate the second opinion about the adequacy of sources, and I enjoy the collaborative nature of WP, where there is a hope that someone may improve the English article anyway. A case in point is Draft:Lothar_Abel. The sourcing isn't great, but I think applying notability standards for artists to Abel as an architect, he passes muster, and he seems to have been well-regarded by his peers; he's a corner of German landscape design that ought to be represented in Wikipedia, but the article is far from perfect. Elemimele (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Othiram Kadakam

I reviewed the page history, and it wasn't a bug that failed to add the template to the page in the first place -- the AFD template was actually there at first, and the page creator removed it a couple of hours before you saw the page. Bearcat (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ha, so that demonstrates that after an AfD is created, if the template is removed from the article, it ceases to display in the feed with the trash can icon. I'll see what we can do about that. Thanks for the heads up, Bearcat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old draft languishing in Signpost archives

I found Wikipedia:Signpost/Signpost Opinion1 while going through the PrefixIndex -- looks like a draft that you wrote in 2018. Did this ever become an article? It doesn't look like it to me. Anyway, do you want to publish it? It would obviously require some light editing because it's from four years ago, but it seems to me like it could just as well run in this issue (or the next one, or the next one, or...) jp×g 00:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, I'll check it out right now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, I've had a look. Thanks again for having reminded me of it. I absolutely cannot remember having written this. It certainly has potential, particularly in the light of more recent developments. It needs seriously updating but I cannot get it ready in the 4 days left before deadline - I have too much going on in RL. I will certainly offer a rewrite for the Opinion column in the next issue though. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 October 2022

From the team: A new goose on the roost

News and notes: Wikipedians question Wikimedia fundraising ethics after "somewhat-viral" tweet

News from the WMF: Governance updates from, and for, the Wikimedia Endowment

In the media: Scribing, searching, soliciting, spying, and systemic bias

Disinformation report: From Russia with WikiLove

Recent research: Disinformatsiya: Much research, but what will actually help Wikipedia editors?

Interview: Isabelle Belato on their Request for Adminship

Featured content: Topics, lists, submarines and Gurl.com

Serendipity: We all make mistakes – don’t we?

Traffic report: Mama, they're in love with a criminal

From the archives: Paid advocacy, a lawsuit over spelling mistakes, deleting Jimbo's article, and the death of Toolserver

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UPE? COI?

Greetings. You and I have discussed the fact that you are much better at spotting these than I am. Could you take a look at User talk:Onel5969#Draft:Matt White (paraclimber), and the draft it is about, Draft:Matt White (paraclimber). I'd like your viewpoint. I know we are supposed to AGF... Thanks, look forward to your thoughts. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, I'd go along with his explanation, but the point is, this isn't even a biography. It's theoretically about a paraclimber but every one of the plethora of sources is just a list of competitions. There is no in-depth treatment of White whatsoever, and it's not as if he's a gold medalist in the Olympics or Para-Olympics. I stick to old-fashioned Wiki values, so it's a 'no' from me. Another reason why a couple of us are working on a plan for presentation to the WMF for te creation if a proper landing page I've designed which clearly tells new users What Wikipedia is not without hurting their feelings and making them wade through the equivalent of 9 print pages of walls of text of policy. If it comes to a RfC (which t shouldnt need to), I hope you'll support it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support anything which cuts down on the banes of WP. And thanks for your input. I also agree with your assessment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Administrator changes

- Isabelle Belato
- Whpq

Interface administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Oversight changes

DGG

Guideline and policy news

The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.

Arbitration

Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous

The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Hello! In response to your message on my talk, yes I'm interested in thinking about how we can set up new editors for success when creating new articles.

I've collected some of my thoughts at User:Femke/AfC improvements. In addition to that, I think it's really important to set up the article wizard as a simple interactive wizard, where people first discover if the topic is notable, then get the space to add a few sources (tick list make sure they meet WP:42), before they start the actual writing process. Very curious if we now have the numbers about how many people use the article wizard, and to what extent we can make it the default for new editors to go through it (new editors may be defined as those that aren't extended confirmed).

As a understand it from the previous conversation, the article wizard used to be longer? Have not time to review those discussions. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Claudio Ronco

You stated this article seems to be promotional. I disagree with that. Claudio Ronco is a Top Scientist in Italy. He is a pioneer in medicine. He wrote more than 100 books which are currently used by universities' students in Italy. He also published more than 1,700 papers. This is no advertisement, it is simply the true. To prove that for each statement I added a citation/link to a reliable and independent source. Luca boscolo (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{u|Luca boscolo}, I have replied eplied on your talk page. There is also an additional note about the problems with all your articles. We have some excellent mentorship programmes where you can learn how to avoid these errors. Please ask at the WP:Teahouse. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive antagonism and chauvinism at WP:ORCP

I dislike the response you posted to User:Carrots3141592's candidate poll. That user seems like a fairly competent editor who is passionate about Wikipedia. While it's true that they're nowhere near experienced enough to be an admin, chastising them and insisting that they need to wait 3 years before they can become an admin is needlessly harsh and might dissuade them from contributing to Wikipedia. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk reader) @Partofthemachine: I, for one, enjoyed Kudpung's post. Wikipedia is a clue-ocracy and anyone who posts there asking about adminship without reading the big banners and the edit-notice deserve to be shown the error of their ways. As you're new and un-accomplished I assume you're not aware of how many editors didn't get a stern warning at ORCP and then got snowballed at their RfA. Warning off that experience helps prevent RfA from being needlessly painful to the unaware. I would have hoped that you would have noticed the three other editors who agreed with Kudpung and therefore realize that it is you who mis-judge competence. Kudpung has contributed a vast amount to Wikipedia, not just as a former admin and a number of articles but also behind-the-scenes management and you should trust whatever he says from now on. More terse characters than Kudpung are on this wiki and Carrots is better-off getting a response from Kudpung than he would be from me. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand what my objection was. It's not that Kudpung discouraged Carrots from doing an RfA, it's that he was excessively antagonistic about it. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nathan, while I was drafting a reply Chris replied sooner making much of what I was writing superfluous. My ORCP comment was based objectively on the rate of the candidate's number of edits per year. You've only been actively editing for three months and I would understand if you are not yet fully familiar with our Wiki world. That said, have you ever considered that your own actions and words leading to UTRS appeal #60827 might dissuade someone from contributing to Wikipedia? You might wish to check this out before complaining too loudly about others in the tone you use on my talk page and in your edit summaries. So let's please not talk about 'excessive antagonism and chauvinism'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticizing someone for something they did onwiki doesn't count as a personal attack. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, Partofthemachine. Now please give it a rest. I was going to suggest you are welcome to ask me for advice any time, but now I would appreciate if you would leave my talk page alone. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely going to be the last comment I leave here for the time being, but can you explain how the comments I've left here count as personal attacks while the comment you made at ORCP does not? Partofthemachine (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my lurking, but as the guy who led off the entire 0/10 thing, I need to say that ORCP is for folks who are actually readily qualified for trust, not folks who aspire one day to such heights. I'd expect admin candidates to be able to follow directions, have solid and meaningful experience, and able to take the pressure of an actual RfA, the last of which is way less kind and thoughtful than Kudpung was during his blunt assessment. While everything is not a test, failing to follow the instructions on the page is not a hard expectation to meet. BusterD (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partofthemachine, not just for 'the time being' - your post above is your last on this page. Failing to follow the instructions on a page is not a hard expectation to meet. BusterD is a highly respected and experienced admin. Note his words please. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your ACE comment

Just curious about the rejected Signpost article you mentioned here. Does it still exist somewhere you can link to? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ACE questions

Just in case it was accidental, you didn't ask SilkTork. Cabayi (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Sile, Elizabeth (21 June 2018). "How the 35-Year-Old Executive Director of Wikimedia Travels". The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Retrieved 4 June 2022.

[1]